Culture or Disability? Two mothers' quest for a deaf baby.

[shamrock_uk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

This is a very interesting article which raises all sorts of questions about the rights of parents to choose what physical attributes their children have. The couple here have views on their disability (deafness) which some may consider distorted (although shared by many) and make a decision that many would consider immoral.

I haven't quoted it because it's rather long. Any contributions to the thread I would appreciate staying off the topic of same-sex marriage or anything related to it - it's irrelevent to the issues raised by the article.

To those who read it, I would put to you these questions:

1) Can the children complain?

2) If no, have the mothers done anything wrong? That is to say, if no one has been harmed, can the action still be wrong?

3) If yes, why?

4) Can deafness be viewed as a culture, or is it just a plain and simple disability?

5) Do parents have a duty to have the best offspring possible. If yes, how does this reflect on the debate about "designer babies" and genetic enhancement?

[ 11-17-2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Sir Degrader]

Its a disability. Sorry, but these "parents" should not have children. If I hacked the right arm off my child just because I had only 1 armm I would be arrested for child abuse. I see no difference between that and this situation, (save that they did it sooner) These people have not only commited a crime, depriving their child of hearing (one of the greatest gifts a human can have), but have also laid a great burden on society by creating a deaf baby. This is a disturbing trend (if it is one), and should not be pursued. All IMO.

[Lucern]

Shamrock, are you trying to get us to do your ethics homework? lol

Interesting though, and worth considering more.

[shamrock_uk]

Haha, no, I had the good sense to drop philosophy a year ago. This is quite random.

[Azred]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 1) Can the children complain? No, because children can never complain about the circumstances into which they are born. That is simply the "luck of the dice" associated with birth. Each person has the duty to make their own lot in life. 2) If no, have the mothers done anything wrong? That is to say, if no one has been harmed, can the action still be wrong? The mothers haven't done anything wrong, in a legal sense. They have, however, been very selfish because they want to define what kind of life their child will have; unfortunately, as parents our job is to help our children find their own life, not live it for them or tell them how to live. We may show them a good example of how to live properly, but ultimately it is out of our control. 4) Can deafness be viewed as a culture, or is it just a plain and simple disability? The group of people who are deaf constitute a "culture", or at least a social group. Deafness, itself, is a disability, even if those who are deaf disagree with that--you cannot hear! There are professions (like surgeon or commercial airline pilot) that are unavailable to those who are deaf, because others' lives depend upon you being able to hear information coming to you. Of course, being deaf doesn't stop one from having a complete and satisfying life. 5) Do parents have a duty to have the best offspring possible. If yes, how does this reflect on the debate about "designer babies" and genetic enhancement? No. Parents have the duty to love the children that they have and give them the best possible upbringing. There is nothing wrong with the concept of "designer baby", because all parents have an expectation of what kind of child they would like to have ("dear, I hope the baby has your eyes"). Even if we had the fully developed technology of genetic engineering this would be just fine. Of course, the most obvious traits--hair color, eye color, skin color, height--are the most irrelevant. There are some genetic traits that should be screened out, such as Down's Syndrome or Epstein's Anomoly. The only trait that should be enhanced is intelligence, whether scientific, musical, artistic, etc. Aside from intelligence, do we currently have the wisdom to know which traits are the most desirable? Of course not! The average person suffers from an almost complete lack of wisdom. The question is, of course, moot because the Nazis forever soured the concept of eugenics or genetic engineering of humans.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Its a disability. Sorry, but these "parents" should not have children. If I hacked the right arm off my child just because I had only 1 armm I would be arrested for child abuse. I see no difference between that and this situation, (save that they did it sooner) These people have not only commited a crime, depriving their child of hearing (one of the greatest gifts a human can have), but have also laid a great burden on society by creating a deaf baby. This is a disturbing trend (if it is one), and should not be pursued. All IMO.

I like the article asking whether a black couple should be disallowed for having black kids because they are discriminated against. Or girls because women are discriminated against.

Should dwarves not be allowed to have dwarf kids? Deaf people can read, write, communicate, think, reason, appreciate art, the sun, trees, shadows, the moon, theorise, philosophise, be theologians, scholars, craftsmen, politicians, anything. Even a drummer if they really want. They can grow food, harvest, be electricians or plumbers or teachers.

I once worked for a music producer who had hearing aides.

I think you need to open your mind as to what constitudes a "disability". Deaf people contribute to society. They are not a burden to it! A deaf person could be reading and replying here and you would never know.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 4) Can deafness be viewed as a culture, or is it just a plain and simple disability?

Yes. A culture that speaks another language.

[Dirty Meg]

Deafness in itself is a disability, the deaf community as a whole are part of a culture. Someone who signs but is not deaf themself, who participates in the deaf community, (for example the parent of a deaf child) is part of deaf culture. So there is a deaf culture, distinct from the condition of not being able to hear.
Yorick - I actually agree with you on something - I'm as shocked as you are

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Its a disability. Sorry, but these "parents" should not have children. If I hacked the right arm off my child just because I had only 1 armm I would be arrested for child abuse. I see no difference between that and this situation, (save that they did it sooner) These people have not only commited a crime, depriving their child of hearing (one of the greatest gifts a human can have), but have also laid a great burden on society by creating a deaf baby. This is a disturbing trend (if it is one), and should not be pursued. All IMO.

The suggestion that a deaf person is a 'burden on society' is incredibly biggoted and indicative of complete ignorance on the subject. Most deaf people have jobs and live their lives like anybody else, with the minor disadvantage of not being able to hear.
What you are advocating is called eugenics. You are not alone in your beliefs. Such historical luminaries as Hitler and Stalin also believed in preventing disabled people from reproducing.

[ 11-18-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Dirty Meg ]

[Sir Degrader]

Meg, I concede this point this point to you. I understand that my statement was incorrect and insensitive.however, the audacity of these people to also use Eugenics (in that to create a specific type of child) to create a DEAF child, one with a disability, one that can never hear, only because they also have that disability is selfish to say the least.